Tuesday, June 18, 2019

UPDATED: The Crux Of The Problem



Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.

- Mark Twain (possibly)

The above quotation, often attributed to Mark Twain, seems more relevant than ever, especially if we substitute climate change for weather.

The ever-increasing toll exacted by 'weather events' that are only growing in intensity is impossible to ignore, as is the warning that we have only about 11 years left before the changes become irreversible. Despite that doomsday scenario, people are, to say the least, ambivalent about paying the cost necessary to avert total disaster. A survey commissioned by CBC News in which 4,500 Canadians were interviewed
found that while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.
... 38 per cent of respondents said that "our survival depends on addressing" climate change and 25 per cent said it is a top priority. Another 20 per cent said "it's important, but not a top priority," while 11 per cent said it wasn't a priority.
The good news is that many Canadians are willing to take some measures to combat climate change, as long as they are not too painful:
The most popular options were buying local (75 per cent) and reducing the thermostat (66 per cent), while 55 per cent said they were willing to purchase fewer things in general. Just under half, or 47 per cent, said they would be willing to drive less, while 37 per cent would take public transit or use a bicycle more often.
The bad news is that people are less enthused about measures that require more 'heavy lifting.'
Just 34 per cent said they would go without air conditioning, 30 per cent would purchase a vehicle with an energy-saving mode and 25 per cent would fly less frequently. Fewer than one in five respondents who were willing to make changes to their lives said they would purchase an electric car (20 per cent), move to a smaller house or apartment (19 per cent) or give up eating meat (17 per cent).
Respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay to combat climate change,
Nearly one-third, or 32 per cent, said they were unwilling to pay anything at all, while 17 per cent said they would be willing to pay less than $100 in taxes every year. Netflix's most basic plan comes in at a yearly price tag of $120.
Another 16 per cent of respondents were willing to pay between $100 and $500 per year — the equivalent of between $8.33 and $41.67 per month. Just seven per cent were willing to pay between $500 and $1,000 per year, while only three per cent would pay more than $1,000 per year in taxes to help prevent climate change.

First-time voters were a notable exception. They were half as likely as the general population to want to pay nothing and markedly more willing to pay extra taxes.
I have said it before: people are their own worst enemies. Coupled with a craven political class all to happy to exploit the electorate, it is surely a recipe for disaster that will grow even greater as the years unfold.

UPDATE:
For those climate-change scofflaws who believe we still have time to debate mitigation, a little something for your consideration:
Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.

A team from the University of Alaska Fairbanks said they were astounded by how quickly a succession of unusually hot summers had destabilised the upper layers of giant subterranean ice blocks that had been frozen solid for millennia.

“What we saw was amazing,” Vladimir Romanovsky, a professor of geophysics at the university, told Reuters. “It’s an indication that the climate is now warmer than at any time in the last 5,000 or more years.“

4 comments:

  1. The old saw is still true, Lorne: Pay me now or pay me later. The majority of us are counting on not being around when the bill comes due.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The other day I was thinking of something that was attributed to Nikita Khrushchev, Owen: "In the event of a nuclear war, the living will envy the dead." I think the dame could be said about the impending climate disaster that so many are so cavalier about.

      Delete
  2. It's the "squeal factor," Lorne. When climate change causes enough people to squeal they'll have plenty of appetite for relief even if it is costly. By then, of course, it will probably be too late but that does seem part of the human condition.

    This brings me back to my now shopworn point that, again, we're treating climate change as a standalone threat rather than a symptom of a much broader and intractable contagion. We don't understand that, eventually, mankind will again live within the limits of the environment, voluntarily or otherwise. The big questions are how many will survive running this gauntlet and what will be left of the place by then.

    If enough of us, perhaps five to six billion, are taken out fairly quickly, the remainder might have enough decent places left to start over. No one knows.

    It's a nice touch that the HoC passed a non-binding climate emergency declaration last night just hours before Trudeau will commit Canada to a bituminous future. No hypocrisy there, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said in a comment on your post yesterday, Mound, politicians are quite happy to exploit the electorate's ambivalence on this existential crisis. We cannot look to them for any semblance of salvation.

      Delete